Skip to content
Natural Lands Trust Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Natural Lands Trust Inc

Saves open space, cares for nature, and connects people to the outdoors.

$4.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$550k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$3.5MArts & Culture$93kCommunity Improvement$50kFood & Nutrition$6k
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 29 grants below total $1,382,917, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,631,096 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,248,179 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $64k
  • $10k–50k17 grants · $219k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$342M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$550,000
Individual grant recipient$500,000
Individual grant recipient$50,000
Berks Nature$43,334
Colebrook Railroad Preservation Trust$16,343
Heritage Conservancy Inc$13,500
Historic Trappe$13,500
Individual grant recipient$11,448
National Audubon Society$10,445
Individual grant recipient$10,000
The Experimental Farm Network$10,000
Hispanic Association of Contractors & Enterprise$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 48% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 8%GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $35k → 6%PECO Open Space: $160k → 6%Historic Trappe: $14k → 7%Delta Borough: $50k → 9%CHESTER HEIGHTS BOROUGH: $500k → 10%Carbon County Citizens for Water Farms & Land: $10k → 10%Berks Nature: $44k → 11%POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $105k → 12%Exelon - PECO Open Space: $150k → 22%Hunterdon Land Trust: $37k → 4%The Nature Conservatory: $10k → 7%PECO Open Space: $160k → 6%Upland Borough: $10k → 10%BERKS NATURE: $44k → 11%POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $44k → 12%The Experimental Farm Network: $10k → 22%HUNTERDON LAND TRUST: $15k → 4%New Garden Township: $30k → 6%PECO Open Space: $150k → 6%Foundation of Pottstown Education: $88k → 7%ORGAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $18k → 10%Berks Nature: $43k → 11%Pocono Heritage Land Trust: $58k → 12%PRESERVATION ALLIANCE FOR GREATER PHILA - FAADE ESMT ENDOWMENT: $29k → 22%New Garden Township: $10k → 6%Warminster Township: $10k → 6%Foundation of Pottstown Education: $69k → 7%Berks Nature: $43k → 11%Pocono Heritage Land Trust: $53k → 12%Riverfront North Partnership: $10k → 22%CITY OF COATESVILLE PALMER PARK RESTORATION: $162k → 6%Heritage Conservancy Inc: $14k → 6%Foundation of Pottstown Education: $65k → 7%Berks Nature: $43k → 11%POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $53k → 12%Hispanic Association of Contractors & Enterprise: $10k → 22%BRANDYWINE CONSERVANCY: $10k → 6%Lower Makefield Township: $10k → 6%BERKS NATURE: $89k → 11%Pocono Heritage Land Trust: $50k → 12%Cosacosa Art at Large Inc: $10k → 22%Bristol Township: $10k → 6%National Audubon Society: $10k → 7%Colebrook Railroad Preservation Trust: $16k → 11%Pocono Heritage Land Trust: $42k → 12%WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP: $550k → 6%FRENCH & PICKERING CREEKS CONSVATION TRUST: $12k → 6%Lower Salford Township: $11k → 7%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 7 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
12

Total granted

$1.8M
$476k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
+127%

Still filing today

57%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 4% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • PH
    POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST
    7× · 2018–2024 · $404k · revenue +64%
  • BN
    BERKS NATURE
    6× · 2019–2025 · $308k · revenue +56%
  • HUNTERDON LAND TRUST
    2× · 2020–2021 · $52k · revenue +106%

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF COATESVILLE PALMER PARK RESTORATION
    one grant, 2020 · $162k
  • EP
    Exelon - PECO Open Space
    one grant, 2021 · $150k
  • GV
    GREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
    one grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue -44%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Inc

See schedule oper the bylaws of the delaware & lehigh national heritage corridor(which were updated by the merged board of the national canal musuem and the d&l), our mission is to work with government entities, non-profit organizations…

Arts & Culture
2
Longwood Gardens Inc
Philanthropy
3
Montgomery County Lands Trust Inc

Land Conservation and Preservation.

Environment
4
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy Inc

The mission of Central Pennsylvania Conservancy (CPC) is to acquire, preserve, and protect local land and natural resources in a five-county, South-Central PA region. Our vision is to create a local network of permanently protected and…

Environment
5
New River Land Trust

To conserve the rural, natural, and cultural heritage of the new river region, protecting farms, forests, open spaces, and historic places.

Environment
6
Natural Lands Trust Inc

Saves open space, cares for nature, and connects people to the outdoors. (See schedule O)

Environment
7
Westmoreland Land Trust

To conserve and steward lands and waters of Westmoreland County that harbor ecological, cultural or recreational qualities to offer a healthier and more sustainable future for all.

Environment
8
Westmoreland Conservancy

The westmoreland conservancy is an accredited non-profit land trust located in murrysville about 20 miles east of pittsburgh in westmoreland county. the organization was founded in 1991, and has always been run by community volunteers. the…

Environment
9
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…

Environment
10
Penns Valley Conservation Association

To serve as a steward for the natural and cultural communities in the upper Penns Creek Watershed. We seek to preserve and Honor the agricultural roots of Penns Valley by protecting and conserving its waters, farmland, forests and rural…

Environment
11
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
12
Massachusetts Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heritage Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Colebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 46 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
11/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $550,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $500,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $470,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $347,688 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITY OF COATESVILLE PALMER PARK RESTORATION: $161,500 · OtherCITY OF COATESVILLE PALMER PARK RESTORATIONExelon - PECO Open Space: $150,000 · OtherExelon - PECO Open Space+25 more: $326,540 · Other+25 morePOCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $404,056 · EnvironmentPOCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUS…BERKS NATURE: $307,973 · EnvironmentBERKS NATUREHUNTERDON LAND TRUST: $52,229 · EnvironmentHUNTERDON LAND TRUSTGREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $35,057 · Environment+2 more: $18,000 · EnvironmentFOUNDATION FOR POTTSTOWN EDUCATION: $222,322 · EducationPRESERVATION ALLIANCE FOR GREATER PHILADELPHIA: $29,460 · Arts & CultureColebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust: $16,343 · Arts & CultureHISTORIC TRAPPE: $13,500 · Arts & CultureHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC: $13,500 · Arts & CultureBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art: $10,000 · Arts & CultureWASHINGTON MEMORIAL HERITAGE: $5,396 · Arts & CultureDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION: $10,000 · Community ImprovementRodale Institute: $5,851 · Food & Nutrition
Other$2,505,728Environment$817,315Education$222,322Arts & Culture$88,199Community Improvement$10,000Food & Nutrition$5,851

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPOCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $404,056 over 7y, 23% of budgetBERKS NATURE: $307,973 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR POTTSTOWN EDUCATION: $222,322 over 3y, 15% of budgetHUNTERDON LAND TRUST: $52,229 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetGREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $35,057 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetORGAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $18,145 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetColebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust: $16,343 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC: $13,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOSACOSA ART AT LARGE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetNORTH BRANCH LAND TRUST: $6,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetRodale Institute: $5,851 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds BERKS NATURE ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATION FOR POTTSTOWN EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds HUNTERDON LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds GREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds PRESERVATION ALLIANCE FOR GREATER PHILADELPHIA ↗
  • Who funds ORGAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Colebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust ↗
  • Who funds HISTORIC TRAPPE ↗
  • Who funds HERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds FRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds DELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Brandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art ↗
  • Who funds COSACOSA ART AT LARGE INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The William Penn Foun…National Fish and Wil…Open Space Institute …The Philadelphia Foun…WeconservepaThe Nature ConservancyThe Pfizer Foundation…Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…The Bank of America C…
The William Penn FoundationPA25.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The William Penn Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc · The Philadelphia Foundation · Weconservepa · The Nature Conservancy · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Natural Lands Trust Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Natural Lands Trust Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 48%
  • Hunterdon Land Trust: 48% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Natural Lands Trust Inc?

Find your warmest path to Natural Lands Trust Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 46 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Natural Lands’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home